sonarr_update_languageprofile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' only restates what the annotations already indicate (readOnlyHint=false). It does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential side effects, required permissions, or constraints on what can be updated, adding little value beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, consisting of two short sentences without unnecessary verbosity. The first sentence clearly names the operation, though the second sentence repeats annotation information, making it somewhat redundant yet still efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a nested body object with additionalProperties allowed, and the description gives no context on the structure or required fields. With zero parameter explanations and no usage context, the description is far too sparse for an agent to call this tool correctly, despite the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema includes two parameters (id and body) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no semantic hints. The description fails entirely to explain what 'id' references or what the 'body' object should contain, leaving the agent without necessary parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('language profiles'), which directly conveys the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools, but the resource name is specific enough to distinguish it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'WRITE' warning is more about caution than usage context, so the tool lacks actionable usage guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.